TCCoA Forums banner

1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,983 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
So I was wondering if the 1960's Mustangs with the v6 could accelerate well?
I'm only thinking in advance here but I would like to get something older, fun and possible to use as a daily driver. At least for a year of fun. I live in LA where the weather is most of the time is nice and when it's not, it's only a little bit of rain.
I have been thinking of things like 60's Mustangs, Torino's, Cougars, 60's-70's Chevelle, Corvette, Camaro/Firebird, and even things like some of the older Datsun's Z's. I had seen most of these with versions in great condition for $5-9 grand. I'd like to get a convertible or T-top but in some models those are higher priced and you would have to sacrifice the V8 to a V6 just to get it in that price range (Mustang). Two of them I am really contemplating are the 60's Mustangs (convertible if possible) and 78-82 Corvettes (T-Tops).
So does anyone with any of those cars mentioned or has a classic car in that price range have any advice on what too look for and what not to get? I am realistically thinking here that a car from the 60's with a great running powertrain, straight body and no/less computer controled stuff would be just as reliable at this point to my tbird which has been driven hard and sucks gas like a hummer. So while I am young I want to have a fun older car for at least a year.

Thanks,
Shawn
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,978 Posts
NiteFire said:
IIRC the 60's mustang has a I6 engine.
you are correct sir!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,726 Posts
They do okay, but the I6 isn't a high rever (in early Fords), decent low end torque, smooth, and reliable, pretty low on the HP ratings too.

My 63 Falcon came with a I6, it has a 302 in it now, so I haven't driven one recently, and the last I6 car I drove was an 80 Fairmont with the 200. Both my Fairmont with the 255 V8 and my Zephyr with the 302 would stomp it, around town it was okay, but mountain passes it sucked, merging on the interstate, etc. And that was when the speed limit was lower.

Probably wouldn't be a bad cruiser but you would probably be wanting for more. A manual tranny might help as well.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,165 Posts
The 200 I6 sucks. the 250 is better. And I think that anyplace a 250 will fit, a 300 I6 will fit. And the 300 is a great engine! :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,890 Posts
My uncle had a Comet with an I-6. Nice engine for just cruising, and wont die, it'll do just fine as long as you dont expect too much from it in performance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,983 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Traveler said:
The 200 I6 sucks. the 250 is better. And I think that anyplace a 250 will fit, a 300 I6 will fit. And the 300 is a great engine! :D
Well I wouldn't be looking to put a V6 in, just wondering because the cars that come with it are cheaper obviously then the V8's. So it would be more in my price range. Although when there is a 289 available it is reasonably priced. The 302 and 351's of course are much more money then the others mentioned. Would be cool to put something like a 90's 4.6 DOHC in the 60's mustang. Maybe that would be a project if I kept the thing longer then a year or so.

I have been seeing nice corvettes 70's-early 80's in the 8 grand range. I think I may lean towards one of them if I do pursue this down the road. Anyone here have one of them? My uncle had a red 78 when I was a kid and I just remember it being a sweet car. I know some are under powered (ratings and I even beat one at the track once) but it's a chevy 350 which would have almost unlimited options.

Thanks again.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,165 Posts
In the Mustangs the 289's usually bring more than the 302's simply because of the years they were available (65-67 I believe). I don't think there was a year that had both the 289 and/or the 302 available. at least not in the Mustang.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,111 Posts
I like stangs, and I'd love to have an old stang 'vert, if it where me, I'd really look for a V8, or do an engine swap....but a 70s 'vette...those are neat looking cars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,978 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,983 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
For some reason I see 64-66 stangs more available now then the 67-70. But I guess more of what's out there in the 67+'s are V8's then what's out there for the -66's. And the 67+'s almost seem more desirable these days and especially in the fast back version. I guess it will be all in the test drive to see what she really feels like when you step on it. I wouldn't be looking to do any swap when I get it. Just something to buy and enjoy for a year. So maybe a V6 would be good and then save up and get a V8 version later on if I wanted to one still. Maybe my wanting an older car fase would be over then, maybe not.

nickmckinney: thanks for the info on the electronic distributor. Any good websites for that type of info?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,758 Posts
Since we're talking early Mustangs... :D

Here is my 65 2+2... which I sold.... I AM SUCH AN IDIOT!!!!:bawling:




And to keep it on subject... I think the 6 cylinder suspension is lighter than the V8 suspension, to include control arms/springs/shocks/brakes/etc. But it has been MANY years since I was up on all that info. You might want to double check that before you look into doing a swap.

Happy hunting! :thumbsup:
 

·
PostSlut
Joined
·
13,597 Posts
Heh, my first car was a 1964 Fairlane, with the 260 V8, and 3 speed on the collum, which we later put on the floor.

I never should have gotten rid of that thing.

Here's a pic of what the car looks like.
Except this is the Thunderbolt version.:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :zspot: :hitit:

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,726 Posts
you had to post a picture of a thunderbolt, damn you. I want to try to put a teardrop hump on the hood of my 63 falcon. The hump (and potted metal boomarang) on there isn't as large as that one, so I don't think it would look right. If I NEED it for the DOHC 4.6 then I will do it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
325 Posts
As it has been said already, there were no 60's v-6 mustangs. I do know of at least 1 v-8 mustang that moves o.k.

This is an old photo of my 66 hipo. It's in the garage right now. Do you think the neighbors would mind me cranking that old 289 up right now at 11:35 p.m.? :D I know those 3.89 gears still work...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,890 Posts
Oh ya those 289s can move. Ive heard about my dads old '67 coupe. And there was no V-6 stang till the 80s, the 3.8.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,983 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Yeah, I mean the I6 I guess. Just was wondering if the smaller optioned engine stangs of the 60's can at least accelerate well enough to drive in today's normal traffic. Thanks for all the talk so far. And the pics of your cars are awesome. I saw a blue late 60's coupe today with a for sale sign on it. Not ready yet but was a nice looking car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,758 Posts
Shawn40th said:
Yeah, I mean the I6 I guess. Just was wondering if the smaller optioned engine stangs of the 60's can at least accelerate well enough to drive in today's normal traffic.
Just to put it into perspective, here's something to compare it to:

1965 Mustang
Weight = Approx. 2600 – 3200 lbs
Engine: 200 cu in I6
Horsepower = 120 @ 4400 rpm (approximately 96 hp SAE net horsepower)
Torque = 190 @ 2400

2000 Ford Focus
Weight = 2564 lbs
Engine: 2.0L I4
Horsepower = 110 @ 5000 rpm
Torque = 125 @ 3750

So the I6 Mustang is definitely drivable!!

But then again I drive an Aspire so my idea of "drivable" might differ from other people's opinion!!! :D :leftright :rofl:

1997 Ford Aspire
Weight = 2066 lbs
Engine: 1.3L I4
Horsepower = 63 @ 5000 rpm
Torque = 75 @ 3000
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
663 Posts
The I6 can be built to run pretty well. Lots of options to get it to go fast. I know adding a 4 barrel, intake, and late model split exhaust manifolds are good for around 60Hp on my '79 F100 with the 300 six.

check out www.fordsix.com for some good inline info.
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top